Effectiveness of Augmented Reality in the Teaching of Health University Students: Quasi-Experimental Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The exponential growth of new technologies has resulted in the need for updating the field of education. From the educational point of view, there are some studies that have promoted the implementation of new technologies. These facts have raised the need to implement augmented reality in the university environment, especially among students of health sciences. The use of augmented reality can mean a new approach to teaching by teachers and better learning by students. Objective: We aimed to analyze the degree of usability of two augmented reality applications and to compare the academic performance between the control group and the experimental group at the Universities of Cádiz and Málaga. The students at the University of Málaga used the Zapworks augmented reality software, while those at the University of Cádiz used the Aumentaty augmented reality software for their respective experimental groups. The secondary objective was to measure the relationships between all the studied variables. Methods: This was a quasi-experimental design with a posttest as the only evaluation measure. We followed the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement and the ethical and legal aspects of the Principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. An intervention was carried out using two augmented reality applications on the subject of General Procedures in Physiotherapy II at the Universities of Málaga and Cádiz. Results: A total of 199 participants took part in the study. Demographic variables, ratings, and usability were assessed, followed by statistical analysis, with the results and their interpretation being described in the study. Significant differences (P<.001) were found in the ratings at both the universities. In addition, significant differences (P<.001) were found between the experimental group and the control group. Regarding the degree of usability in the univariate analysis, no significant differences were found (P=.049). A multiple regression analysis of the rating and usability was performed. The rating showed significant differences, with a beta of 1.4 (P<.001), and usability was also significant (P=.03) in favor of the Aumentaty group. Conclusions: Significant differences were observed in those who used augmented reality compared to the control group, with higher values observed in the University of Cádiz. There are no correlations between the variables of usability and qualifications.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».